This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
I unfortunately have no immediate need for this, and there are other things (many other things) on the priority list anyway, but hey, it is cool.
AirPort Express
Enjoy your iTunes music library in virtually any room of your house. Share a single broadband Internet connection and USB printer without inconvenient and obtrusive cables. Create an instant wireless network on the go. Extend the range of your current wireless network. How many devices do you need to do all this? Just one.
Oh, by the way, did I mention here that my mom did go ahead and get a 12″ Powerbook fully loaded? Boy am I jealous! Powerbook is way down on the list to spend money on at the moment too. Maybe by the end of the year or early next year.
Brice points out how many web content management vendors are moving into areas without the “web” in the name to deal with more traditional document management issues. This definately matches trends I have seen in my own career.
Document Management, Digital Asset Management, Content Management, Web Content Management, Knowledge Management… all significantly overlap each other. It is natural that companies that start in one area as their specialty try to branch out into the others as they grow. I question if in the end this usually leads to better more useful products, or if it just muddles the focus of the companies trying to do everything.
Enron High-jacked Enterprise Content Management
(Brice Dunwoodie, CMSwire)
To put things succinctly, earlier today the point was made by Tony Byrne of CMSWatch that ECM purchases are now made by a completely different area of the organization. What used to be IT’s domain has now fallen under corporate governance, legal, and finance.
Vendors who made their name selling enterprise web content management tools are now talking document management, records management, email management, Sarbanes-Oxley, compliance, etc.
This is an entirely different ball game.
On Feburary 27th my 500Mhz Powerbook G4 Titanium had it’s 3rd birthday. Which triggered my “time for a new laptop”. I’m on an every 3 year replacement schedule. But, a few factors were in place. First, I was still unemployed. Not the best time for a big cash outlay. But second, one look at the MacRumor’s Buyer’s Guide made it clear that the Powerbooks were getting close to the average time between updates. It was long enough since the last update (in September) that it would pay to wait for the next update. I’ll only buy when that guide says “Buy Now” or “Neutral”. If it says “Buy Only if you need it – nearing end of cycle” or “Don’t Buy – Updates Coming!” then I’ll wait. So, even if I had been employed, I would have waited. And so, when I did get a job, it was still a waiting mode.
Finally today, the updates came:
Powerbook G4
Starting at just $1,599, the newest PowerBook family offers more. More power. More speed. And more advanced capabilities. Whether you prefer the ultra-compact 12-inch model, the coveted 15-inch powerhouse or the breathtaking 17-inch stunner, every new PowerBook G4 features faster PowerPC G4 processors — with speeds topping the charts at 1.5GHz. Like to burn up the road? The new PowerBook models offer 4x-speed SuperDrives. And each new PowerBook comes standard with both AirPort Extreme — offering the fastest speeds in wireless networking — and Bluetooth.
This is not yet a Powerbook G5. Looks like that will bve at least one more update in the future. Maybe early 2005 or late 2004. Drat. My current machine is falling apart though. I do need replacement, and a rule is a rule. It is the next update after the 3 year mark. I should buy a new one now.
Of course, there is another issue. I am in the process of trying to move. I’ll need to be putting a downpayment on a house and all that. Plus I am still recovering from the short incomeless time between when my severance ran out and when I started my new job, and the lack of a January bonus this year. So, before I can order the new Powerbook, I have to move and buy my new house. That comes as a higher priority. And my car is dying too. I probably have to get a new car first too. That is also a priority.
And the model I would want would be the 17″ with almost all the options. Which would put it at $5483. Ouch! (ALL the options from the Apple Store Online would put it at $8198, but I don’t need the external Cinema Display and such… but I did include a case and a new iPod and extra batteries and the like in my price. :-) So, unless my machine dies completely (in which case I’ll order the new Powerbook that day) I’ll be waiting a bit longer before getting my new computer. And who knows, by then it may be time to wait for the next upgrade again. Ugh!
But I wants it! :-( Oh well. First things first. House, car, then computer. Oh, and my GPS may be dying too, in which case I’ll need to replace that as well. Everything is dying at once! Sigh! Until all the other stuff is taken care of, I’ll keep this old Powerbook running with glue and tape and the occational replacement part.
Meanwhile, Apple also updated the iBooks.
iBook G4
Like to carry around a notebook that delivers exceptional power at an affordable price? Then pick up an iBook G4. With a faster PowerPC G4 processor running at speeds up to 1.2GHz — optional DVD-burning SuperDrive, expanded memory capacity, advanced wireless networking capabilities, and the impressive stability provided by Mac OS X version 10.3 “Panther,†iBook G4 brings truly impressive performance to everyday life. And with pricing as low as $1099.
My mom is in the market for a laptop by June. I was hoping this update would be in time for that, and it is. I’m thinking an iBook would be good for her rather than a Powerbook, but both are possible. In a few weeks I’ll take her to a physical Apple Store to play with them and pick what she likes, then figure out the best we can do in whatever her budget is. (Oops, have to ask that I guess.) I’ll be rooting for the 14″ iBook with a bunch of the options. We shall see.
Anyway, I want that 17″ for me. But I have to wait. I hate waiting! :-)
OK, lets try this again. The elder Bush did this, and it went absolutely nowhere. Time for another go. This Bush seems to have a tendency to try to finish his dad’s business….
Bush launches plan for moon-Mars quest
(Seth Borenstein & William Douglas, Philadelphia Inquirer)
President Bush set a soaring “new course for America’s space program” yesterday by proposing human exploration of the moon within a generation and of Mars sometime after that.
I actually think this is wonderful. I hope it does better than when the first Bush proposed something similar, and it just died. The fact that we have now gone about 30 years since the last time we were on the moon in inexcuseable. There has been an extreme slowing of our progress. It is time to get back on track.
There are a couple things that keep getting said that annoy me when I hear them.
The first is that any manned exploration is a waste of time, money and resources and it is much better to just use robots cause they can do more and better science for less money and less risk. I think this completely and totally misses the point. Even if it is true, which is somewhat debateable, this is not about the science. This is about manifest destiny and the human desire to explore and experience new things, and to achieve new things that have not been done before, and to meet new challenges. The science is a side effect. A great side effect, but a side effect none the less, not the primary goal.
Second is that we are better off spending the money at home. There is a need to be financially responsible, absolutely. The deficits are out of control and need to be balanced. I don’t believe in spending money that is not paid for. But, having said that, within the context of a properly balanced budget, things like this need to have their place, and even the large amounts needed for something like this are small compared to many other budget items, and this kind of thing needs to be included. And, even in addition to the straight “we should do this because it is good to do in and of itself” factor, this kind of effort often leads to many spin off technologies that end up helping society at large. And if it properly captivates the public imagination it can lead others who are not directly involved to become interested and educated in scientific and technological fields, which in turn leads to even more innovation. There is plenty of benefit.
Anyway, good job Mr. Bush. At least there are a couple things you can get right it seems. Of course, we’ll see if anything actually HAPPENS, or if it is just a bunch of words.
Well, more companies are still buying Content Management Systems. This should be a good thing for my career prospects, since figuring out how to make these things work in a way that makes sense both technically and for the actual users is kind of what I have been doing the last few years, and most likely, will relate to things I do in the future.
Commentary: Clear thinking on content management
(Nicholas Wilkoff, Forrester Research on CNET)
Thirty-two percent of North American companies planned purchases of content management technologies in 2003. At the same time, the market has seen a mass of acquisitions and consolidation by the vendors, as evident from IBM’s purchase of Green Pasture Software.
(via Google News Alert on “Content Managment”)
A decent article on some things that matter toward choosing a platform to use. But as I have mentioned before, another very important question is “Do you need it at all?” as in many cases, you really don’t. Then if you do really need it, most of the platforms out there can do good things. But careful implementation is vital. Limit scope, keep things as clean and simple as possible, only add complications or diverge from the out of the box product when absolutley necessary. It is very easy for these projects to suffer from over broad scope, and get bogged down. But with careful control, content management can be a great thing…
Another place where people are starting to get it.
Perls of wisdom in a sea of site mismanagement
(David Walker, SMH)
In short, Berk has been reporting on what sites are actually doing, rather than describing the idealised world portrayed by technology vendors and integrators. His core complaint: site management system vendors are creating generic solutions that actually increase the cost of running a site. Meanwhile, most businesses either have very simple needs that require only cheap, simple systems, or have specific needs that generic solutions handle poorly. That means the vendors’ ideal of a generic site-management system “is completely wrong”, Berk says. “The development overhead is very, very high – and for 90per cent of the problems, that’s too much overhead.”
So what should most organisations do? “Use the tools that are simple and cheapest,” he says.
What sort of tools does Berk have in mind? Perl scripts, for instance. A tiny technical team armed with Perl scripts and an Oracle database ran the first sites he worked on back in the mid-1990s. Berk recalls his fascination as he saw larger and larger teams implementing more and more complex platforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s to achieve essentially the same result.
I wrote about this her on my blog a few months ago. I used to be a big fan of a nice, well thought out, generic content management system. After having worked on several projects of that sort, my view has turned completely. Except in VERY SPECIFIC situations where the group doing the project really needs it, and is already structured for and mentally comfortable with the notion of the full seperation of content and presentation, doing a generalized content management system is just courting disaster.
At my last position, in late 2002 I was brought on to take over a Content Management project that was having lots of trouble. After investigating the situation my first recomendation was to stop the approach completely. And instead build quick, small, targeted cheap and easy systems that would meet the specific content management projects that were on the table, not try to solve larger problems that were mostly imaginary, or consolidate for the sake of consolidation.
I was overrulled.
So we tried to define the big system as best we could. And did a damn good job I think. But then it proved impossible for the tech team to implement in the time allotted, and the tech team tried to develop it using the wrong technologies (mandated to them from above). What resulted was a horrible mess that we were forced to use because by then we had no choice.
A small, quickly crafted custom application done by one or two good developers, could have blown away the system we ended up getting. One that had the data model we wanted, but tried to use the generic interface provided by one of the big enterprise systems instead of the one we had defined.
It isn’t just a matter of maturing technology, it is a matter of being smart and picking the right tools for the job, and not trying to solve bigger problems than you need to.
There may be disadvantages to doing “quick and dirty” solutions in that they eventually pile up and cause spaghetti type problems… but all in all, they often end up being much more cost effective than going all out on massive “enterprise” solutions that try to do everything.
With a fraction of the money my company spent on various failed content management solutions over the last few years, they could have kept employed a small army of HTML people manually updating the sites. Yes, it would have been manual. But the end results would have been just as good, and the company would have saved a lot of money. Some quick and dirty automation tools would have helped even more. But the larger systems… unless a specific need is there… boondoggle.
Good to see more places are learning it is time to be smart about such things.
Just wanted to mention a little bit about IM Spam, which I hear is now being called “Spim”. Sometime in 2002 I got my first ever IM spam. For about a week I got a bunch. Then for a year I got none at all. Then, perhaps a month ago, I started getting them again. Lots. A bunch. Well, nothing like email spam, but maybe 10 a day. And they are much more annoying that email spam.
I have my IM client (iChat on OS X) set to ask me whenever someone not on my buddy list sends me an IM rather than just showing it to me. So at least I don’t see the actual messages. I think ONCE in that time over a year ago, in a week moment I actually looked at one… and egads… I accidentally clicked on it! So I know I am on their lists forever. But when I got none for such a long time, I was happy!
I of course block all addresses that seem like they might be spammers. Things like goodlinda5675t7823 or whatever. But of course they never reuse the same one anyway I’m sure (or do they, dunno, I’m blocking them). But I already accidentally blocked my sister once when she got a new screen name. She IMed me to tell me, I thought it was a spim and blocked her. Oops.
I am getting to the point though where I am seriously considering changing the setting to only allow IMs from people already on my buddy list. If they keep coming, I guess I’ll do that. But that sucks.
Sigh!
Yawn. The last game was the least interesting of the bunch. Drawn quickly.
Kasparov vs X3D Fritz match finishes 2-2 after game four draw
Chessbase News
Game four ended in a draw and with it the X3D Man-Machine World Chess Championship match also ended in draw. X3D Fritz won game two, Kasparov won game three, and games one and four were drawn. Kasparov receives $175,000 for the result and also takes home the golden trophy. (Although since it drew the match X3D Fritz said it was going to store a virtual reality copy of the trophy for itself.)
As I said last time, the time has not yet come whent he machines completely dominate the humans. Maybe in a few more years.
One more more general comment on the match though. It is really nice of X3D to sponsor these things. But the whole 3D thing is BS. For being a third party looking at the game, the 2D board is much better. The 3D boards in all kinds of commercial chess games are there as gimmicks, but nobody would actually use them to play a game! That would be crazy! It is much harder to see what is going on.
Gary is being a real sport (despite his usual whining excuse making when he loses) in playing with the 3D board at all. It is clearly a disadvantage. I don’t see why anybody would ever want to play like that.
They need to work toward complete computer independance in these games. Let the computer use a real board and clock. Let it use a robot arm or something to move the pieces. And let it make its own decisions about draws and resignations. And oh yeah, give it all the opening book you want, but handlers shouldn’t have any influence game by game on which openings it uses.
It would be even cooler to turn the opening book off entirely. I gather right now that costs several hundered rating points if they do that. But eventually the machines hopefully will be good enough that they don’t need it and can come up with new opening theory of their own.
Anyway, it was a fun match. Thanks to Brandy for going to two of the four games with me.
I’ll be ready to go again next year if they do this again!
Well, OK, that was depressing Sunday.
Kasparov ‘obliterates’ Fritz with strategy
New Scientist
“Almost from the start Fritz did not understand what was going on and just shuffled his pieces around aimlessly,” says Jonathan Schaeffer, in the computer science games group at the University of Alberta, Canada. “Kasparov won effortlessly without giving Fritz an opportunity to do anything.”
So, OK, I was dissapointed by Fritz’s meltdown. I wish it had done better. But since I had promised “more later” after the first two games, and never got around to it, let me write a couple things now.
I have been to three games this match, and to a few earlier matches. The biggest difference is that these are on ESPN2. And let me tell you, while it is cool for it to be on ESPN2 and all, it really diminishes the on-site experience. I might even be better off watching on TV and the Internet!
In the non-televised games the commentators got into a lot more detail and really talked about the positions and what was going on. I am not that great at chess, despite wishiing I was better, and with that I actually felt like I was LEARNING a lot in the process of the games, just by listening to the commentary. And there was a LOT of audience interaction. Q&A on things that were going on, etc. And because much of the croud were professional chess folks, sometimes one of them would join in the commentary for a bit in detail. “Oh, I see Susan Polgar in the front row, the world’s women’s chess champion… Susan, would you care to tell us what you think of this position?” And she (or whoever) would jump right in. All that sort of thing. It was very dynamic and free flowing and it was easy to LEARN.
The ESPN2 coverage kills most of that flavor. For one thing, mechanics… the room is set up for TV, not for the audience. Although they got it right for Game 2, for Game 1 and Game 3 the volume was set so that it was VERY hard to hear the people on stage, even sitting right near a speaker. And with this, plus the TV lights on the croud for the occational crowd shot on TV means that the croud never really settled down to pay attention. Everybody was doing their own personal analysis on their own boards and such, but at FULL VOLUME, so you couldn’t really hear the people on stage. Plus, the coverege itself was “dumbed down” for ESPN2. I mean, I am a beginner really, so some of it was still fine for me… but for a most of the time it was too basic even for me. They kept over and over talking about average times per moves and how many points of material had been lost and things like that, and about the board only in the highest level terms. Some of the real chessies in the audience I could hear getting really aggrivated about that “If you’ve played chess for more than a day this is not for you! They are trying to dumb it down to catch the people who flipped the channel hoping for football. As if they would convert and all of a sudden say ‘I’ve been wrong all these years! Forget football! Chess is the game for me!'” I tend to agree with this sentiment. Forget ESPN. Put this on PBS somewhere and do some real chess talk. I do like Ashley and Seriwan though. They are fun to watch. But they need to be allowed to really do their thing like they did in earlier matches, not the highly constrained ESPN format.
In game 3, after the first 90 minutes ESPN went to an update format. About once every 15 minutes, they gave a 2 minute quick recap and update of the game. No more continuous coverage. Maurice and Ashley a couple of times tried to switch to “lets do this for the croud here and do REAL CHESS” mode, but because of the volume and lights issues, and having to break back for TV frequently, they just couldn’t quite pull that off. I wish they had. That would have been better.
And of course the computer resigned. It would have been nice to see it play through, just for educational purposes if nothing else. And I still maintain that even in a losing position on the board, the computer should be programmed to try to make variations where the human is more likely to blunder and/or try to get them into time pressure to win those ways. There is no reason for a computer to ever accept an end of game other than by the rules that force it.
But regardless, the computer’s play in this game showed that we are still a few years from when the computers will completely dominate. I look forward to the day when the world’s best computer playing the world’s best human results in a game that looks like the worlds best human playing a child who just learned the rules for the first time. That will be the day!
Well, later today we’ll see if Fritz can still win or tie the match. I’m crossing my fingers!
Yea! Garry blundered and lost in time pressure. I am happy! More later…
|
|